Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Small (17x17 to 66x66)

Large (129x129 to 257x257)

[runlvlzero]

I prefer large region world maps 257x257 with a 2x2 elevation mesh (less mountain ranges), huge variance in volcanism, medium variances in everything else. 1000 erosion.

To me, they save and gen about the same as the medium ones. Small ones don't give me enough variety in embark options and seem cramped for sites/civilizations and monsters. I have never noticed world size to bother FPS... that's all been embark size and Z-levels above the surface plain (huge mountains lag). I prefer small 3x3 embarks usually. It takes me about 20-40 mins to generate a 500 year old 257x257. I usually go with 1000 sites, and 25 civs.

Before the trolls jump down my throat, yes this has been discussed many times (in a thousand different none congruent threads), but there has never been a thread specifically for it. Search "small vs large world" in this sub-forum and you got zero results previously. ("small vs large", came up with a bunch, but none specific enough to easily find).

[slink]

I prefer larger worlds, but the truncated history and lack of reproducibility of Large Regions in 34.x has made me drop back to medium.  Smaller worlds don't have enough variety of starting places and civilizations for me.

[Ultimuh]

I also prefer large maps.
However world gen takes too long time for me to bother,
so I usually settle for medium.

[Broseph Stalin]

Even a pocket region generally has a few choice embarks, since I gneerally throw a world away after I finish with a fort big worlds don't matter. If I do set aside time to gen a large world I let it build up a decent history and then I use it several times.

[Lexx]

I usually do a custom world gen based off of the large region default. 900 year history as well. Nice mix of sites and plenty of necromancers and vampires. With fully growing semi megabeasts but still al decent number of forgotten beasts about. I also usually up cave amount and sizes to this end as well.

[Garath]

I also prefer large maps.
However world gen takes too lomng time for me to bother,
so I usually settle for medium.

seconded

[Shinotsa]

I'd choose medium even if all world types could be genned instantly. I tend to up evil + good regions by a bit and I've found that medium gives enough room to have variety while still having memorable places. I've found that large is far too big to be realistically explored in an adventurer's lifetime, and small tends to be too cramped to get what you want. I'd love a custom option for sizes though I'm aware of the issues associated with that.

Ideally I'd play between small and medium, but between the two I'm definately going with medium.

[King DZA]

Depends, really.

If I'm running a test fort or just want a few comfortable spots to screw around in, I'll go for a smaller world. If I'm in the mood to explore, dig through the Legends, and build up a legacy over the course of several fortresses/adventures, I'll take the time to gen up a larger one.

[Loud Whispers]

Large is my default world size. Gives me more room to stay on one world for longer, and generally I only make pocket worlds to science or severely mess with the game.

[KodKod]

I've recently starting genning my worlds at 65x65, as opposed to 257x257, it makes a hell of a speed difference without sacrificing diversity.

[telamon]

I always generate maps in perfectworldDF, so honestly I could function on any map size - perfectworld ensures plenty of variation of terrain and I know what it's going to look like before I start generating. However for maximum variety I always gen on 257x257. I honestly couldn't care less how long worldgen takes as long as it finishes "eventually"; I leave my computer on for 3 days straight during the weekends anyway and worldgen typically doesn't take more than 6hrs on my comp for 750 year history in my giant worlds.

Basically what it boils down to for me is that a little world just doesn't have enough STUFF in it for me, and I can live with any time cost incurred in genning a bigger world, so why not

[runlvlzero]

I always generate maps in perfectworldDF, so honestly I could function on any map size - perfectworld ensures plenty of variation of terrain and I know what it's going to look like before I start generating. However for maximum variety I always gen on 257x257. I honestly couldn't care less how long worldgen takes as long as it finishes "eventually"; I leave my computer on for 3 days straight during the weekends anyway and worldgen typically doesn't take more than 6hrs on my comp for 750 year history in my giant worlds.

Basically what it boils down to for me is that a little world just doesn't have enough STUFF in it for me, and I can live with any time cost incurred in genning a bigger world, so why not

This is great advice, perfect world stops you from having to run 8 gens to get something "pretty" not that you cant just hack a great world with tons of embarks out without it (in fact I think everyone should learn a bit about doing it this way so they understand what the numbers mean and what biomes will go were), but it sure beautifies the whole experience ) Also for those sedimentary volcano's...

[Kofthefens]

Medium. Diversity without too much.

[Jingles]

257x129 for me (wider than it is taller always forget which is which).  I try as much as possible to stick multiple forts on one world even though it rarely works out that way, and while I don't ever end up adventuring there's a thought in my mind that I'd really like to.  So I basically make big maps based on wishful thinking.

[kaijyuu]

Small.

No real benefit to large worlds as far as I can tell, besides being easier to find the exact spot you want without multiple world gens. Smaller worlds take less time to generate, are more likely to have necromancer towers in range of wherever you build, and don't bloat your save games.